Delegated. Not Surrendered.

The debate over President Obamaâ€™s so-called healthcare plan has once again put the Constitution in the spotlight. Individuals from both sides of the debate are making some constitutional assertions that have no basis in fact. One of these is the claim that in adopting the Constitution, the States â€œsurrenderedâ€ some of their sovereign powers to the federal government.

In reality, the several States did not surrender any powers; they delegated a portion of their powers to the federal government. Since the powers of the federal government come from a delegation of power, not a surrender of power, the States can amend or rescind their grant of power anytime they please through the amendment process.

A review of the ratification documents of the individual States shows that the principle of â€œdelegated powersâ€ was first and foremost in the minds of their delegates and the cornerstone of their requests for amendments to the proposed constitution.

On September 28, 1787, the proposed constitution was transmitted by Congress to the several States for ratification.

On February 6, 1788, Massachusetts, the sixth State to ratify the proposed constitution, was the first State to formally request amendments to the document. The first five States basically ratified the document unconditionally. Their ratification document stated, in part:

â€œ[I]t is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.

First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised.â€

It is important to note that Massachusetts was requesting amendments to restrain federal power and preserve state sovereignty.

The New Hampshire Conventionâ€”June 21, 1788.

â€œFirst That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly& particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them, Exercised.â€”â€

The Virginia Conventionâ€”June 27, 1788.

â€œFirst, That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of the foederal government.â€

The New York Conventionâ€”July 26, 1788.

â€œThat the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness, that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.â€

The North Carolina Conventionâ€”August 1, 1788 (does not officially ratify until November 21, 1789).

â€œI. THAT each state in the union shall, respectively, retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.â€

The Rhode Island Conventionâ€”May 29, 1790.

â€œ1st The United States shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States.â€

John Taylor of Caroline, Tyranny Unmasked

Note: the only State to request amendments but did not use the word â€œdelegatedâ€ was South Carolina. Their ratification document (May 23, 1788) used this language:

â€œThis Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.â€

On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced a series of proposals in the House of Representatives that would eventually become the Bill of Rights. His initial proposal for an amendment based on these proposals read:

â€œThe powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.â€

This proposal was slightly modified during the debates in Congress and became the Tenth Amendment. It was ratified by the States on December 15, 1791, including South Carolina.

The Tenth Amendment etched in stone the principle that the powers of the federal government come from a delegation of powerâ€”not a surrender of power.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

18 thoughts on “Delegated. Not Surrendered.”

The Tenth Amendment cannot be read alone. The Preamble and all Articles, Sections and all the other Amendments of the Constitution of the United States must be read in pari materia with the Tenth Amendment. Otherwise, no one can hope to understand the past and current triangular relationship existing between three separte entities, namely: (1) the federal government; (2) the governments of the several states; and (3) The People. The proper heirarchy for these three "competing" entities is as follows: (1)The People, who are the real sovereign; (2) the several states, which are created and controlled by The People in each separate state; and (3) the federal government, which was created and is still controlled by both. (continued in another post)

I agree with that sentiment. Most people believe that the hiearchy is the people and then to washington while the states are some kind of dangling limb. This is wrong. Its the people who are governed by the states and then the states are governed by the federal government. The federal government should not be the primary government in our lives. In fact, I think a true federal system would go: the people, the city, the country, the state, and then the federal government.

(this post is continued from a previous post) The Tenth Amendment clearly reflects this "trinity" in the language thereof; the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States begins by recognizing this correct heirarchy; and the several Articles, Sections and Amendments repeatedly restate this correct heirarchy. In short, The People are sovereign and everyone needs to deal with this fundemental fact: Unless The People want their state governments to continue to exist, the states affected will not exist; and unless The People want their federal government to continue to exist, the federal government will not exist. The People are the only sovereign. Many others pretending to be "king" learned this fundemental Truth the hard way.

The states constitutionally delegated foreign affairs to the first government, total sovereignty to the second, and reserved most all powers from the third.

Obamacare, and almost all encroachments upon the states and the People, have come via the second “United States”, because the people haven’t been warned how to recognize it.

I would start by understanding the difference between the state citizen, which created the Union, and the artificial citizen of the United States “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (category 2 above).

Sovereignty is something that is NOT delegated. Power can be delegated by a sovereign…in this case, the states as representatives of the sovereign people living in each state. But sovereignty, defined as final authority, always remains.

The rest of your comment – no time to address it all. This was most important in my opinion.

Observe or not. I give the reasons Constitutionalists are not getting any traction. One major reason is that state citizens do not recognize WHICH “United States” they are dealing with. If they understood that they were being approached by the second definition “United States” they would have an entirely different strategy than if they were dealing with the third definition, wouldn’t they?

And if you have a court opinion you would like comments on, please cite it for us.

oh, what I'm saying is i don't CARE what the court says. As long as people start learning to follow the constitution as it was written and ratified – with that original meaning – the court can give us whatever opinion they want and it won't matter. this is about the power of the people…..

Like Andrew Jackson allegedly said to the supremes "You've got your opinion, now come and try to enforce it!"

April 12, 2010 at 7:20 am

Escapee

Andrew Jackson was one hellofa great president, but the thieves and looters made him the poster boy for their bogus money system anyway. So what does that tell ya?

And he knew what he was doing.

Saying that you don't CARE what the court says reveals a lot. First that you do not understand the context in which the supreme court decisions were made, and second that you have no idea how massively stupid the power of the people at any given point in time can actually be.

I'm confused by your argument that most encroachments come via the 'second United States' because people can't recognize it.

The 'second United States' seems to be a reference to your list of 3 different ways of seeing our national government as explained in Evatt.

If that's correct, then you would be referring to the physical lands over which the federal government has control (D.C., Guam, A.S., certain forts, dockyards, etc. where title to the land rests with the federal entity).

How does the people's inability to recognize these territories (lands) over which the federal government holds title (or has control) cause "encroachments on the states and the People"?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and how it relates to the article above.

I thought the point of Mr. Greenslade's article was that the states didn't intend to permanently give up power to the federal government in ratifying the US Constitution. Several of the states made this crystal clear at the time.

Instead of a permanent 'surrender' of powers, according to the author, they were merely 'delegating' (which implies a temporary grant) certain powers to the feds and, as such, those powers could be reclaimed later.

I'm guessing the author would like to reclaim some or all of them now.

Thank you for the question, guest. I'm trying to tell an extremely simple story, which sometimes is not so simple to do!

Can category 1 "U.S." approach a Citizen in his state? NO. Category 1 United States only has jurisdiction abroad.

Can category 3 "U.S." approach a Citizen in his state? NO. The U.S. was delegated no such power, and further the Tenth Amendment forbids it.

That leaves category 2 "U.S.", the physical lands over which the federal government has control. The U.S. can create corporations and "persons" within these territories and enclaves because they are the sovereign.

Delegation, surrender, abrogation, whatever. If the feds have your signature on a document saying that you are one of their franchisees, they can follow you anywhere in the world and tax you on that privelege (Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47).

Michael: Amen! Every SC case needs to be applied to the original intent of the constitution. We are in the predicament we are due to tortured logic used to infuse federal government into places it has no business. “Commerce clause” comes to mind. It is so obvious if we just read the arguments of our founders and the constitution…

also note that the 10th amendment only restricts the federal government refers to prohibitions on the states but ultimately ZERO restrictions on the people in their respective states. Truely evidencing that we were always meant to be a Free People and the ultimate arbiters of all the Laws of the Land, otherwise they wouldn't have kept the Declaration of Independence as equally important of a doc as the Constitution. "alter or abolish"

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.